Experience vs. Change

The conventional wisdom states that the battle between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama is experience vs. change. At every turn, Clinton touts her experience and Obama labels himself as an agent of change. In reality, Obama has plenty of experience, but of a type different from the experience of Clinton, of a type that makes it easier for Obama to bring about change.

As you may know, at the last Democratic debate, Obama stated that he would meet with our enemies without preconditions. Clinton pounced and stated that she would not meet with them without first having others in her administration check them out first.

The notion that I was somehow going to be inviting them over for tea next week without having initial envoys meet is ridiculous. But the general principle is one that I think Senator Clinton is wrong on, and that is if we are laying out preconditions that prevent us from speaking frankly to these folks, then we are continuing with Bush-Cheney policies.

Bingo! This is exactly right.

Clinton has political experience that taught her how to make a "gotcha" statement. She grabbed the situation presented and delivered her political pitch. Obama answered candidly what the questioner wanted to know. Clinton calls Obama's answer naive; it is so only in that he did not proactively protect himself from her scheming. This comes from Obama's lack of the type of underhanded political experience Clinton possesses in abundance.

With the above statement, Obama sets the record straight. And he adds that Clinton's "experience" is very similar to the "experience" of Bush and Cheney.

Obama claims that he has lived abroad and understands non-Americans. Thus, he has better experience than Clinton with which to achieve agreements with leaders of other countries.

Do we want the same ol' same ol' Bush-Cheney "experience"? Or do we want a change? I am ready and I am sure you are ready for a real change. To get that change, vote for Barack Obama.

I do not know that I am quite ready to proclaim a commitment to Obama as yet. However I have heard him speak in person here in my hometown when he was running for state office. I as most who hear him speak was very impressed to say the least. He has something that most old school legislators lack. That is the feeling that he is genuine in his thoughts. He also seems like a person that can be trusted. He obviously is an intelligent well educated and sincere person. I find it very refreshing to have a legislator that my first thought about them is not how is this person putting the screws to us today. I find that trust and honesty are rare and very hard to associate with the vast majority of legislators these days.

Yes experience is the biggest factor where he is concerned. But to be honest I do not see one so called more experienced candidate in the running that I feel would bring any more good to the office than Obama at this point. What we truly need at this juncture is a president that will work to change the ways of a government that is so deeply mired in vengeful political party bashing and corruption that it has become almost impossible to achieve any meaningful legislation. Obama may very well be that person who can restore some integrity and credibility to government.

I have said it before and I will say it again and again here until my fingers fall off: if Hillary gets the nomination, the Republicans will win the White House in both ‘08 and ‘12. The slate of candidates on the Right remind me a great deal of the slate in 1996, the last time the Republican Party knew they had little chance of winning. They are a bunch of throw-aways, no one that could seriously make a run. McCain has run out of gas, Guiliani turns the Religious Right off too much, Thompson just isn’t enough of a name, Gingrich has too much baggage, and Romney… well, he’s a Mormon. Any decent candidate from the Dems could beat any of these guys.

Except Hillary.

Now don’t get me wrong, I think it’s beyond high time for a woman president. But it’s just not time for her. The name “Clinton” automatically raises the hackles on the back of any committed Republican, especially the Religious Right. If she wins the nomination, the Republican turnout will be monstrous, especially in swing states like Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania. They will come out just to vote against her, no matter who they end up voting for. She will only lose by a single states-worth of electoral votes, with much scandal and more than a few recounts, but she will lose. In 2012, the Republican incumbent will win, just because it’s damn near impossible, with the way the Electoral College is tilted towards the Heartland, for an incumbent Republican to lose.

Don’t believe me? Take a look at Hillary’s numbers here and here compared to Obama’s here and here.

So why Obama, then? Put simply, I think he has been in politics just short enough that it hasn’t completely corrupted his soul. I think he actually believes what he says. How good of a job he will do implementing it… only time will tell.

The notion that I was somehow going to be inviting them over for tea next week without having initial envoys meet is ridiculous.

He should have stopped right there. I said in my article that that was what he probably meant to say, but the longer Obama drags this out the more he looks inexperienced.

But the general principle is one that I think Senator Clinton is wrong on, and that is if we are laying out preconditions that prevent us from speaking frankly to these folks, then we are continuing with Bush-Cheney policies.

Except that she never said or implied anything of the sort. Now he’s starting to look petty.

I started off leaning towards Obama, but the more I see of the candidates the more Hillary looks like a winner.

Paul,AP et al
By your piece it sounds like there are only two candidates. John Edwards has laid out a workable healthcare plan. He has also recently laid out a workable plan to address poverty by ,among other things encourage the poor to save and improve the EIC.He is authentic. Concern for the poor has no great political advantage.
His haircut bothered me also until I read a Krugman column. Some time ago there was a Dem running for president as a populist,vowing to help the average working American. He was rich. He not only had a huge mansion,he had two. One for summer and one for winter. His hobby was yachting,about the most elitist sport there is. He won. That was FDR.Please take the time to look into his platform.

I think the power of the religious right was a moment in time. Everything I have read recently suggests that they no longer are the driving force they once were. As for Hillary, I am not a fan but also feel that she should not be underestimated in her ability to get herself elected and reelected. As for Barack Obama, I think we are kidding ourselves if we believe middle america and the average uninformed american voter will ever vote for someone whose name is Barack Obama and whose middle name is Hussein. If he gets the nomination the republicans will begin to refer to him as Barack Hussein Obama. That in itself will scare most voters. As for Edwards, I am lukewarm about him. I don’t see much difference between the top 3. I prefer Dennis Kucinich but he doesn’t stand a chance.

AP
Yeah,and RFK would have been a good president except for being whacked.That could be Obama’s big problem too. Hard to believe the white supremisist will not make a concerted effort to take him out if they become convinced he will win.

caution:tasteless joke ahead

I hear tell that the marriage between Swartzenegger and Shriver was actually contrived by liberals to breed a bullet proof Kennedy. Sorry.

We have long time even before the first primary. It is way too soon to narrow the field to only two candidates even if that is what the MSM wants.
Edwards comes up with workable policy solutions. His healthcare proposal for example allows those that do not like the idea of a single payer government approach the choice of enrolling in a private insurance option in competition with the government plan.If the private plan can do a better job,fine. If not,also fine. Americans would have universal healthcare one way or another.
Edwards poverty program proposals are not welfare but incentives to save and work. It should resonate with many moderates and even the mytical”compassionate conservatives”.

“His healthcare proposal for example allows those that do not like the idea of a single payer government approach the choice of enrolling in a private insurance option in competition with the government plan”

BillS, would that mean people would be able to choose and pay into whatever plan they want or that they would have to pay into the govts plan no matter what, but can also pay for private insurance if they want too?

KCTM
The way I understand it is you have a choice. The private plan would have to meet minimum standards but could offer more if they chose to. I really suggest you read up on the proposal directly. I would hate to risk misleading you.

When are us voters going to wake up. We keep electing Lawyers and career politicians and they are the problem. They are writing laws that make them rich and tell us that they are for the working people. We need to elect working people. I just read where Hiliary wants to start a college for career politicians. We don’t need this. It will just make more of the good ole boys network that is costing us working people out the wazoo. We voters need to elect Doctors, teachers ,accountants and other people that can make a living without using our money to do so.A career polotician has only one resource to make money and that is from your pockets.This status quo politic’s is why there is so much corruption in govt. Lets change that with term limits and stop letting these people run our country with their own agenda.I wish I had the money to get 15 minutes on tv so I could tell people this. Pass this on and lets start a movement.